Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. Again, though, there are specific ways a lawyer might make a void for vagueness argument.
Roots
In the case of vagueness, a statute might be considered void on constitutional grounds. Specifically, roots of the void for vagueness extend into the two due process clauses, one in the fifth and one in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. The courts have generally determined that vague laws deprive citizens of their rights without fair process, thus violating due process.
Perhaps the most famous pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was in Connally v. General Const. Co by Justice Southerland:
| “ |
the terms of a penal statute… must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. |
” |
Specific Application
There are at least two ways a lawyer might attack a law for being unconstitutionally vague:
- When a law does not specifically enumerate the practices that are either required or prohibited. In this case, the ordinary citizen does not know what the law requires.
- When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Judges must, under the doctrine, have a clear understanding of how they are to approach and handle a case.
Theoretical basis
A number of arguments are presented in favor of the void for vagueness doctrine. The most basic is as expressed by Justice Southerland, that an individual should not face punishment for violating the law, unless the nature of the prohibited conduct can be understood by a reasonable person. This concept is not unlimited, given that personal ignorance of the law is not generally considered to be a defense, under the doctrine of Ignorantia juris non excusat. Nevertheless, the void for vagueness doctrine is seen as protecting an individual's right to due process, including the ability to investigate what is prohibited in a specific situation, and then to live free from fear or the chilling effect of unpredictable prosecution.
A second argument is conceived not as a personal protection, but as a limitation on the state and its ability to initiate criminal prosecutions. If penal statutes are overly vague, it is argued that the state's discretion to prosecute becomes too broad, and potentially subject to abuse through selective enforcement.
One criticism of the doctrine is that there is an inherent indeterminacy in every law, so attempting to eliminate them is folly and only leads to more problems. Another criticism might be that vague laws are actually good, that they allow the judge or jury to apply a single law in a number of situations unanticipated by the legislature.
These might be answered by responding, on the first hand, that the doctrine does not attempt to eliminate ambiguity altogether, but only so far as an average man, in an average situation, might understand the meaning. To the second criticism it might be responded that, indeed, laws should not be impossibly narrow, but in a system that presumes both liberty and innocence, such broad laws as those suggested by that criticism would be undesirable as they would catch in their net many innocent citizens.
Other vagueness tools
Vagueness does not always lead to a determination of invalidity. Often times, judges will utilize tools which will help them determine the meaning of a statute. In cases where a judge uses such tools, there exists the rule of lenity; this rule states that in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant
References
Chemerinsky, Erwin (2002). Constitutional Law Principles and Policies, Aspen Publishers, ISBN 0-7355-2428-9.
Harr, J. Scott and Kären M. Hess (2004). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, Wadsworth Publishing, ISBN 0-534-62880-X.
